human rights in the armed forces

[towhey]

AndyBoy: I don‘t disagree with you that not all people, nor all recruits, are cut out to be soldiers. I don‘t believe I ever suggested such a thing. Only, that all instructors are tasked to try and make soldiers of them.

As for my glib analogies... they are based on 14 years in the regular infantry teaching about 2,000 candidates everything from GMT recruit to NBCW, and supervising dozens of NCO and officer instructors.

The "granite" perspective is all too often a prominent factor in the systemic failure of military training -- and it requires particularly diligent and mission-focused young officers and NCOs to overcome it. Fortunately, for all of us, such officers and NCOs exist and are often in the right place at the right time.

Cheers,

2e

 

[Andyboy]

The problem, towhey, is that instructors are given neither the resources, time, or freedom to shape their soldiers. They are restricted by policy makers who have little to no actual experience instructing yet consider themselves experts (obviously, as you pointed out, you are not one of them). Unfortunately the choice often comes down to investing an inordinate amout of time on a few individuals to mold them -or- admitting that they just aren‘t prepared for what we do. The current system is based on everyone being equal at everything which I‘m sure you will agree is ridiculous, it‘s also based on the idea that anyone can do anything, which is also ridiculous.

 

[ender]

patriot,
The reason why I can‘t elaborate the exact treatment of the troops on that course is because it is a) under investigation by the MP‘s. and b) it would be detrimental to the CF if I were to post it on a public forum. Suffice to say there was some bad stuff going on, every one who heard about it is disgusted, and it‘s being dealt with through army channels.

There are plenty of good troops out there. There are plenty of slackers. If the recruiting centre is screening these people (which, considering the qualitiy of troops we‘ve been getting, they aren‘t) then the units will have to sort them out when they get there. There should be provisions for getting people out of the army if, say, they have a complete lack of English skills. Eventually, it all comes down to the character of the unit.

 

[centurion]

Originally posted by ender:
There should be provisions for getting people out of the army if, say, they have a complete lack of English skills.

ender,
I‘m sure you meant fluent in either official language.

 

[the patriot]

Andyboy:

There‘s always Plah-Doh....

-the patriot-

 

[Brad Sallows]

Take the long view. In a war crisis, our trainers must be able to turn nearly everyone who isn‘t manifestly unfit into a soldier, and the passing grade won‘t be decided purely on the basis of who is fit for the stresses of combat arms. (I suppose performance may dictate post-basic trade selection.) There is a hidden challenge there that we always need to be able to meet, and we test that capability every time a QL2 runs.

I am among those who believe the 16-day QL2 is ridiculously short. But, with the new Basic Military Qualification (BMQ) and Soldier Qualification (SQ) standards (about 20 training days each?) we will have about 40 training days to work up a basic army soldier. I haven‘t looked at the standards in detail, but intuitively it seems like it should be enough.

 

[PTE Fader]

I just got back from my BRT two weeks ago and have been in a vegetation like state since, but I kinda want to know what this thread pertains to.

From what I‘ve read, it seems alot of people have beefs about the quality of the average recruit and the training s/he undergoes to become a basic, untrained soldier. (sorry if I‘m horribly wrong, but I‘ve only read half the posts on this topic)

From my basic, I can say this (not pertaining to the CF, but to the individuals):

Some of the people on my basic should not have passed, and that they did disturbs me personnally. Some of my platoon mates had horrible discipline, fittness, and general compitance. Even though we‘re Comms Reservists, I know that we are still required to achieve a bare minimum of the attributes aforementioned.

On my basic, one fellow‘s fitness level could be described by the phrase "[the other recruit] ran as fast as I could walk." For Section and even Platoon level tasks, he was narcissistic, either refusing to help or being physically unable to perform them. His hygiene and general sanitation were deplorable, and from the way he conducted himself, everyone in my platoon had a horrible disdain for him.
I know I was hoping that the instructors would reem him out, but the WO‘s, Sgt‘s, Mcpl‘s only saw the hygiene aspect and physical of this recruits character. And so he escaped with a few minor slaps on the wrists; a few verbals and writtens for not showering or shaving, and lots of scorning for not being able to keep up during PT.
As point man EVERY SINGLE DAY for PT and Marching, I found it absolutly revolting when, after running for 5 minutes, I‘d have to double back, sprint pass laggers like him, and watch as he fell in in front of the platoon. What was worse, was when I had to do sattelites around the platoon during PT because I was WALKING and keeping infront of them. Who was right marker? The recruit I‘m talking about.
What really took the cake wasn‘t that this recruit passed his BRT with full qualifications, but he placed THIRD in my platoon due to incredibly high test scores. That‘s third highest scoring soldier out of the platoon.
On my BRT, I was top third in my platoon, and I though I‘m a geek as a civvy, I believe I have the potential to be a fine soldier. This other recruit‘s example is one that irritates me incredibly. It is for that reason, that I don‘t feel as good about completing my BRT as I thought I would when first set out, and the reason that I will only consider myself a good soldier, IF I pass my JLC‘s.

To my knowledge, the CF has greater control over who goes on thier JLC‘s. And from what a Corporal who completed his told me; "I‘d rather be doing [BRT] for four months than my JLC‘s. Your JLC‘s is hardcore, Reg Force Infantry sh*t." I‘m looking forward to going on mine.

 

[McG]

Originally posted by Brad Sallows:
[qb]I am among those who believe the 16-day QL2 is ridiculously short. But, with the new Basic Military Qualification (BMQ) and Soldier Qualification (SQ) standards (about 20 training days each?) we will have about 40 training days to work up a basic army soldier. I haven‘t looked at the standards in detail, but intuitively it seems like it should be enough.[/qb]

I agree whole heartedly. However, to do this the second course must be designed with the intent to train a soldier to ELOC standard and not leave any related material untaught.

 

[Andyboy]

Something that we seem to overlook is that todays troops are tomorrows NCOs. I believe that if we don‘t train them well in the very beginning then they will never be well trained.The first course a troop receives does more to shape them than any other, I believe. How many times have we struggled with a troop on a QL3 or QL4 who has been poorly trained on their recruit course? Unfortunately the emphasis seems to be pumping out numbers in the hopes that they will be brought up to the standard at a lateer date, by someone else. I think it does more damage than good, and we would be better served building a solid base from day one and not relying on something that may or may not take place a t a later date. After all, the ones doing the training at a later date may well be the ones who were half trained today.

 

[Yard Ape]

It is true Andyboy, however the problem is not just the quality of training. It is also the new troops comming in the door. The recruiting age has been dropped to 16!! Sure there is the requirment that a recruit turn 17 within the current calender year, but they are still joining at 16. We can all think of examples of 17 year olds who made fine soldiers (that is some of us), but the average 17 year old is not ready. Not physicaly and not mentaly. Unfortunatly, recruiting looks at the minnimum age and take the below average kid off the street. The result of this (coupled with the increasingly shorter QL2) is that new soldiers are failling off of QL2 and QL3 courses in record numbers and that the quality of those who make it through is remarkably lower.

Raise the minimum age back to 17 (at the least), higher the exceptional applicant (not the average) at minimum age, and increase the time dedicated to training. Only these steps will corect the problem.

Yard Ape

 

[PTE Fader]

I‘m not too sure I agree with that whole age debate. Again looking back to my basic, there were 4 16 year olds in my platoon, 3 of which finished top third. They were fit physically, and prepared mentally better than some of the older troops. Myself, I‘m 17, and I was one of the top troops in the platoon; I consider myself a very well rounded fellow.

What I want to know, is how long are QL2‘s in other trades? Mine was just under 8 weeks, consisting of 6 weeks of BRT, and a week and a half of LET. I heard that Infantry QL2‘s are only 6 weeks or something, since they‘re supposidly not trained on the C9 or something.

 

[Yard Ape]

Everyone in the Canadian Forces has the same QL2. The only difference is if you are reg or reserve. The QL2 for a reservist is 16 days + SHARP. At the moment there is no common course specific to the army. QL3 is when courses become specific to trade.

16 days is not enough time to mold a soldier.

I stand by my 16 is too young statment. Physically and mentaly the average 16 year old is not ready. I saw courses this summer were the average candidate was 17. In a situation like that it is not surprising that a 16 year old can excel. But how does that 16 year old perform when compared to what is required on a battlefield?

 

[Gunner]

Canadians as young as 16 have been allowed to join the CF for many years. When I joined you had to be 17 by July 1st. Was I a model soldier? Probably not (and RCA can attest to that), however, I started early and stayed with it and now almost 20 years later I‘m not sure if I would have joined if I had to wait until I was 18.

Some 16 year olds will be excellent soldiers (see Pte Faders post above) and some won‘t. Some 18 year olds will be excellent soldiers and some won‘t. The same will be said for every age. It‘s a moot arguement at best and we need (especially in the Reserves) as many people as we can get irregardless of their age.

 

[PTE Fader]

Actually, Yard Ape‘s got a point with that argument about 16 year olds being immature, the fellow i described in detail above was 17, and in addition to the lackings he had, he spent $800 dollars on Game Boy and Game Boy accesories!
Actually, Yard Ape‘s got a point with that argument about 16 year olds being immature, the fellow i described in detail above was 17, and in addition to the lackings he had, he spent $800 dollars on Game Boy and Game Boy accesories!

Some of the younger recruits were some what immature; one of them found it really hilarious to do halting procedures to a fire piquet in the field with noise discipline in effect. But I have to admit, some of the older recruits were equally bad. Personally, I found it pretty disgusting when some of the older recruits stumbled from going town on the dot at 12:00, bragging about how they banged hookers, smoked pot, and got absolutly hammered.
It‘s kinda hypocritical of me to say that since I got a little bit drunk at the JR‘s mess on occasion, but I was ===>a little bit <====more reserved in my conduct. A 28 year old fellow came in shouting about how he got into a threesome with two complete strangers, bragging about how many condoms he used, how pissed drunk he was, etc. etc.
Another example, was a 19 year old who openly boasted at the end of the course "I didn‘t do a single section job the time I was here. Hell, I don‘t even know how I got in! I smoked 6 bongs before the drug test!"

It‘s true, alot of us younglings have the added disadvantage of immaturity; but that‘s just one weakness that we could potentially have. Everyone has them, be they 16, 19, 28, or 44. But we all also have strengths; I guess it‘s a hard equilibrium to achieve such that the strengths equal or exceed the weaknesses.

BTW, my
Some of the younger recruits were some what immature; one of them found it really hilarious to do halting procedures to a fire piquet in the field with noise discipline in effect. But I have to admit, some of the older recruits were equally bad. Personally, I found it pretty disgusting when some of the older recruits stumbled from going town on the dot at 12:00, bragging about how they banged hookers, smoked pot, and got absolutly hammered.
It‘s kinda hypocritical of me to say that since I got a little bit drunk at the JR‘s mess on occasion, but I was ===>a little bit <====more reserved in my conduct. A 28 year old fellow came in shouting about how he got into a threesome with two complete strangers, bragging about how many condoms he used, how pissed drunk he was, etc. etc.
Another example, was a 19 year old who openly boasted at the end of the course "I didn‘t do a single section job the time I was here. Hell, I don‘t even know how I got in! I smoked 6 bongs before the drug test!"

It‘s true, alot of us younglings have the added disadvantage of immaturity; but that‘s just one weakness that we could potentially have. Everyone has them, be they 16, 19, 28, or 44. But we all also have strengths; I guess it‘s a hard equilibrium to achieve such that the strengths equal or exceed the weaknesses.

BTW, Yard Ape, how do you mean QL2‘s are only 16 days? I mean, what qualifications are met with your QL2‘s?

 

[Yard Ape]

PTE Fader, have a look here: 16 Day QL2!?!*

:fifty: Yard Ape

 

[beamer]

Where there is a large number of people in the middle ranks that are very near retirement, and realize there are no extensions or promotions in thier future, they simply put in time until they are done. There is a large number of the soldiers that are simply "putting in time" and they are the ones training the new reqruits. Soft reqruits.....or worn out ready to retire peacekeepers/teachers

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Age smage, some can do it young some can‘t. Same goes for older people. I lied about my age and joined at fifteen. Got caught when I went reg, had to fess up and promise not to do it again! Still doin it at 48 years young. The youngest, decorated US infanteer in WWll was 12, lied about his age, got in, fought hard, combat infantry badge & got wounded. That‘s when they found out his age. Congress reinstated his VA benefits when they mustered him out. Britian had boy soldiers for generations. Started out at 10 and 11 carring the drums and standards into battle and grew up to be RSM‘s and Generals in a proud, strict and effective army. The kid from the ghetto at a young age is probably more ready, physically and mentally, to be a soldier than the silver spooned university frat boy 10 years his senior. People are diverse, with different traits and upbringing. Age has nothing to do with it. You got it or you don‘t. Don‘t waste any more air time with this unarguable point.

 

[armybuck041]

It is up to the leaders to deal with these problems. One of the biggest problems in the reserves is maturity. Never mind the soldiers but how about the leaders???(here goes the flame war) I sit back and watch every year here at CTC, the reserves show up in the summer, and the people who were on trades training the previous year are now the leaders. All to often there is a ridiculous amount of yelling and screaming, not because the soldier is ****ed up (like the staff says), but rather the leaders are often confused and incompetent and feel that this is a good way to hide it. I used to listen to the staff joke about who was putting his/her troops through the wringer, as though it was a game. Listen too me good here: You cannot develop the skills to lead troops at home or abroad in 2 summers. But yet the PR continues to do this. I am proud of the fact that I do not need to yell, scream and threaten my soldiers in order to get them to work. But yet year after year I see instructers from the PR treat their students like a bunch of children with ADHD. If you verbally abuse your troops in order to complete a simple task you WILL be in trouble when something serious comes up. Come down off the power trips a little bit boys and girls. You will never gain an ounce of respect in this manner. I learned this years ago from a true competent leader, who was calm in all but the most gravest situations, which in turn gave us confidence. Leading troop should be an honour, why not start acting accordingly.

Firm, Fair, and Friendly

not this figgin: "Do as I say and not as I do" attitude i‘ve been seeing lately.

Then you might actually start retaining people in your units.

 

[Gunner]

Armybucks...

I‘m surprised by your comments about this happening at CTC. Of all the schools, CTC has the best infrastructure and the most permanent staff. They should be able to "stamp out" any abuse of authority that occurs. It‘s been a number of years since I instructed at AC/NC level but I didn‘t witness the type of scenarios you are indicating.

What leaders are developed in two years (two summers)? Only Ph II and III officers I suppose. I would hope they are the ones not doing the yelling.

Where do the Reserves learn the yelling and screaming techniques? To be sure it is perpetuated by a lack of experience, but since most have been influenced by the Reg F, could that be the source of the behavious?